Government and Military

June 4^th, 2002

Dear Prime Minister Blair,

In response to our letter of 24^th February 2002 on behalf of Trident Ploughshares I was told by Justine Mansell from 10 Downing Street by letter dated 16^th April to expect a reply from the Ministry of Defence. My MP Norman Lamb has just forwarded me a reply he received from Adam Ingram of the Ministry of Defence but I have had no official reply sent direct to Trident Ploughshares. Please could you make sure that in future replies to our letters do come to us direct as well as through my MP - thank-you.

We would like to seek clarification in this letter to just one of the issues you responded to as it is of such vital importance at the moment when the UK is embroiled in several armed conflicts - your interpretation of what is or is not contrary to international law. The various other issues raised we will address in a separate letter.

We are seriously concerned at recent indications that British nuclear weapons could be used against Iraq. On Wednesday 20 March 2002 Geoff Hoon, Secretary of State for Defence, appeared as a witness before the House of Commons Defence Select Committee.

In para.236 Jim Knight MP asked him: "Do you think such a state [’a state of concern’] would be deterred by our deterrent from using weapons of mass destruction against our forces in the field?" Mr Hoon’s answer is " ... the United Kingdom possesses nuclear weapons and has the willingness and ability to use them in appropriate circumstances". In para 237 he says that " ... in the right conditions we would be willing to use our nuclear weapons ... ". The context makes it quite clear that Mr Hoon implies the possibility of a nuclear response by the UK, not against the British homeland, but to a chemical or biological attack by Iraq on British troops in the field. This would be a flagrant breach of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) statement on the survival of the state.

On 8 July 1996 the ICJ confirmed that to threaten, let alone use, nuclear weapons would be generally contrary to International Humanitarian Law. The judges were unable to pronounce on whether they could be lawful "in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake". Even then, any such threat or use should never violate the law.

A typical letter from the Ministry of Defence to the World Court Project UK, dated 15 December 1999 states that "the United Kingdom would only consider using nuclear weapons in self-defence and in extreme circumstances, and subject to the rules of international law, and humanitarian law, applicable in armed conflict". This reflects faithfully the language of the ICJ. Many other letters and statements in Parliament are couched in similar terms.

Mr Hoon’s evidence to the Select Committee flies directly in the face of such undertakings. A chemical or biological attack in the field could, by no stretch of the imagination, qualify as a threat to the survival of the British state.

We are given to understand that a necessary condition of deterrence is uncertainty. A potential enemy must not be allowed to predict any response the UK might make in a crisis. However, we hope that this does not imply any uncertainty about breaching the law. That, surely, is ruled out. This, in fact, is precisely what is claimed. Letters from the Ministry of Defence repeatedly claim that " the Government is satisfied that neither the possession of Trident nor our policy of nuclear deterrence violate the principles of international law". A letter from Adam Ingram at the Ministry of Defence dated 18 April 2002 (D/Min(AF)/Al I8I7I02N ) to Charles Hendry MP says that there is " ... no conflict between the Defence Secretary’s statements to the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence on 20 March, and our commitment to meet our obligations under international law or the I996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice. ... Geoff Hoon merely confirmed that, under the right conditions, we would be willing to use our nuclear weapons against an aggressor. It remains the case that we would use nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances of self-defence". However, it is significant that this, like other recent letters, and answers to Parliamentary Questions on this subject, refers only to "extreme circumstances of self-defence" and does not complete the sentence, derived from the ICJ Opinion, " ...... in which the very survival of a state would be at stake". It is difficult to make sense of this. Mr. Hoon allows the possibility of a nuclear response to a chemical or biological attack by Iraq on British troops in the field. However, this could not possibly comply with the "very survival of a state" restriction. And yet the Government claims that such a response could be legal.

Is it possible that the Government is being advised that the doctrine of "belligerent reprisal" could justify the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation for Iraqi use of CBW? As we understand it, this means that an action which would normally be illegal could be lawfully carried out if it were done to prevent an infringement of the law by an adversary. The ICJ Opinion is silent on this except to say that even belligerent reprisal would have to comply with International Humanitarian Law - a circumstance difficult to envisage. If the Government believes that the doctrine of belligerent reprisal is valid we have reason to be deeply disturbed. This would claim to legitimise the use of nuclear weapons in a much wider variety of circumstances than if the survival of the British state were at stake.

We would therefore like your answers to the following:

  Do Mr. Hoon’s statements to the Defence Select Committee represent Government policy regarding the possible use of Trident?
  Are we correct in interpreting Mr Hoon’s evidence to the Defence Select Committee as leaving the door open to use of Trident against an aggressor who attacks British troops in the field? - in other words to defend British troops involved in operations outside of the country when the UK itself is not under attack?
  Does the Government believe that "an extreme circumstance of self-defence" must, by necessity, include a threat to "the very survival of a state"? - Will the Government rule out any use of Trident against Iraq except in accordance with the ICJ statement at para 105 2(E) of the 1996 Opinion?
  What is the Government view on the doctrine of belligerent reprisal in connection with the use of nuclear weapons and the readiness to use them?

We look forward to your response to these important questions as soon as possible.

Thanking you,

Angie Zelter,

on behalf of Trident Ploughshares

Printer friendly version

Home | Top